Easley to plead guilty to felony

will be on the hook to pay this feculent dirt bag his pension.

Easley's felony conviction is a very good thing for NC, even if he does not serve any prison time. If nothing else, it's a sign that the good ol' boy network infrastructure in NC, which is propped up by the North Carolina State Bar, is beginning to implode. There is shame today in being a Tar Heel, but it is the shame of the greedy and the vain, not the public's.

And the good ole boy infrastructure in NC will not be dismantled just because the parties change. The same fat cats who've poured money into Democratic coffers turned around and poured 'em into GOP coffers for the same reasons and with the same likely results.

Nonetheless, the Democrats have to take responsibility for Jim Black, Meg Scott Phipps, Thomas Wright, Mike Easley and . . . perhaps another one or two to come. We'll see.

I hope that what has changed is the level of scrutiny the press is willing to give to politicians behaving badly. I think N&O deserves credit for not looking the other way. The advantage that the GOP has had is that it hasn't been in power in NC for long enough to develop the level of arrogance the aforementioned Dems demonstrated in their behaviors and expectations of being protected by the system (they controlled it, after all).

Of course, if Art Pope exemplifies the attitude of the new leadership, we can expect more of the same arrogance from the GOP that we had with the Dems.

plus court costs. That doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist. More like a slight breeze tingling the wristhairs. I could theoretically receive a larger fine from the grammar police for making "wrist" and "hairs" into one word. *sigh*

After two years of investigations by the IRS, FBI, Grand Jury and SBI, guided by a Republican US Attorney and a Republican District Attorney, there was never a charge or indictment until this very thin charge was entered today. I would guess it was agreed to to end the persecution.

I think its time for us to recognize that our perceptions of Gov. Easley are the product of a rabid press corps. I feel quite sure that if real crimes had been found they would have been prosecuted.

Someone help me out here.

Some of the reports are saying Easley pled to a felony for something that was a misdemeanor when it was committed.

The campaign finance laws have changed frequently in the past decaded -- by legislation or court ruling.

What am I missing? Is this a case of throw a lot of charges and see what plea you can get?

Easley was up to his ears in corruption. The ONLY reason he didn't get indicted on a slew of felonies was that thanks to SBOE chairman Larry Leake, he received immunity for all charges that could otherwise be proved by evidence he provided at the State Board of Elections hearings.

Leake somehow forgot to read to Easley language that Colin Willoughby had insisted be read when hearings were held on the Phipps, Black and Wright matters. That language made clear that the testimony at SBOE hearings was not being "compelled." The reason Willoughby insisted that Leake read this language before swearing in the witnesses on those aforementioned felons was that he didn't want the existence of a somewhat obscure statute (passed during the Watergate era) to confer immunity from prosecution to these witnesses on the basis of their testimony at SBOE hearings.

The statute was modeled on legislation passed during Watergate Hearings to encourage truthful testimony at quasi-judicial panels (that is, hearings held by Congress, or, in the case of NC, by SBOE). If being subpoenaed by SBOE were interpreted as "compelled" testimony, then the witness would be immune to prosecution based on evidence from that testimony. Thus, Larry Leake made clear to previous witnesses -- as they were sworn in -- that their testimony was not "compelled" so that they could not assert immunity. He did not do this with Easley, and no one has asked him why.

Thus, Easley's attorneys cited that obscure little statute when they argued that no charges could be brought against Easley based upon testimony he provided at the SBOE hearings. Kennerly and Holding were left with little choice but to bargain -- and Joe Cheshire drove a tough bargain. Easley would admit to a single felony (instead of the many he could have been convicted of (again, had Leake not "forgotten" to read him that language before his testimony) in exchange for having everything else dropped and the fine ridiculously low.

As one who voted for Easley TWICE -- proudly -- I have not come to my conclusion that he was little more than a crook lightly. I hate admitting how wrong I was about a man who seemed to offer so much promise.

Well, my goodness! All this time we've been told that our elected lawmakers have been creating laws and regulations that would protect and defend the honor and dignity of ALL Tar Heels!

Now we're learning that the laws and regulations they've been making have been built with enough loopholes and back doors in them that NO lawmaker (to say nothing about the lawyers who 'serve' them, of course), could face any serious time for anything but the most heinous offenses!

After all, who would've thought for a second that these fine and duly elected boys and girls would, or even could, consciously exclude themselves from all but the most casual scrutiny when looking for Real criminals among our citizenry?

Friends, if we make it possible for duly elected lawmakers (or their attorneys!) to face the prospect of significant jail time during the course of their service to their State, where in Heck are we going to find candidates to even RUN for elected office in The Olde North State? (Much less find lawyers to 'serve' them?)

Upon more reading about the case in various places (including upthread) yesterday and today...

Most folks seem to think that the state prosecutors never had a solid case (they got the case in Oct 2009) since the immunity issue was a part of the state Board of Elections process.

Most folks seem to think the feds case blew up with the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Skilling (honest services) case which happened on June 24.

So why are we sitting here in late November 2010 just now getting resolution?

A cynic might say that Holding and Kenerly were on Chesire's payroll racking up the billable hours on this Easley case for months on end when they had nothing.

Seriously, Kenerly took a year to figure out he didn't want to play ball. Holding got the rug pulled out from under him 4-5 months ago. Why wasn't this handled months ago?

The prosecutors' case was quite solid until they discovered that Larry Leake effectively conferred immunity to Easley at the SBOE hearings -- and then sought for any case that might suggest how the statute in question would be treated in court. (All that should just take a couple of moments on google, right?)

Clue: Law doesn't happen in real life like it does on tv. It usually takes more than an hour.

Anyone who thinks Holding and Kenerly were in cahoots with Cheshire to rack up billable hours for nothing has not a clue about who these men are or what the practice of law entails.

I've seen some ignorance-steeped assertions about this case, but yours suggests you truly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to law or the people who practice it.

Holding and Kenerly are both well known in legal communities throughout this state. Their reputations among their peers -- whether Republican or Democrat -- for integrity are well established and for good reason. LIkewise, to suggest that Cheshire would stoop to unethical or illegal practice on behalf of his client for "billable hours' is just so danged stupid that it barely deserves this much comment.

on the Easley conviction:

As stated in the our letter that became part of the state court file today, these principles include whether the potential federal charges are supported by enough admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction, whether the accused person should be subjected to multiple prosecutions, and whether federal charges would promote cooperation with state prosecutors.

After weighing all these factors and consulting closely with Special Prosecutor Kenerly, we have decided to decline federal prosecution of former Governor Easley, and bring to a close the federal investigation of him. We have written a letter to Mr. Easley’s counsel to this effect, and that letter was today made part of the state court file.

It is no cause for celebration that a former Governor of North Carolina has been convicted of a felony related to his service as Governor, but it does signify that North Carolina is taking seriously the enforcement of its campaign finance laws. This ends a sad chapter in North Carolina history.

When this story began to unfold, I still had a fairly benevolent opinion of the Governor. I even posted a blog or two defending him. But you know, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and accepts payment in-kind for backroom services rendered like a duck, then it's a fricking corrupt duck.

Does everyone get it now? The feds had the evidence; they just weren't sure the judge would let it in because of the legal effect of the immunity statute. Joe Cheshire was able to convince Kenerly and the feds they would look like idiots after the jury acquitted, or, the convictions and sentence would be appealed in state and federal court for years and years to come. You are talking millions and millions of dollars in legal fees. Brunette is right, you can't get millions from a bankrupt client, so why not just come out looking like a criminal defense hero, which Cheshire did?

The only time Easley got excited was when the judge asked him if he was satisfied with his attorneys. He said "absolutely." That translates roughly into something like, "I love them so much for getting me this beautiful plea that I have invited to them my house for Thanksgiving and Christmas!"

What we, the public, need to demand now is:

1. That Easley be disbarred because he is a convicted felon.
2. That Easley not get his pension because he is a convicted felon.
3. That Easley pay the remainder of the SBOE fine.
4. That Larry Leake explain why he let Easley take advantage of the statute.